More Articles

The Dispatch E-Edition

All current subscribers have full access to Digital D, which includes the E-Edition and
unlimited premium content on Dispatch.com, BuckeyeXtra.com, BlueJacketsXtra.com and
DispatchPolitics.com.
Subscribe
today!

Depending on whom you ask, the proposed American Electric Power rate settlement would reduce increases in customer costs and spur economic growth, or it would lead to skyrocketing costs that stifle the economy.

AEP yesterday announced the agreement it negotiated with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio’s staff and more than a dozen other parties; consumer advocates oppose it.

The PUCO board will have several months to decide whether to accept or reject the deal.

A typical residential customer of AEP’s Columbus Southern Power would pay an average of $123 per month next year, down $3 from the current rate, the company said. AEP’s Ohio Power customers would pay an average of $118 per month, up $7 from the current rate.

In 2014, a Columbus Southern customer would pay $131 per month, and an Ohio Power customer would pay $126 per month, increases of 4 percent and 14 percent, respectively, from current rates.

Those numbers don’t include the parts of the plan that are not yet assigned a dollar value — big-ticket items such as the construction of new power plants. It also sets up a cap of sorts on the share of customers who can get their electricity from a provider other than AEP.

“There were a lot of different views and interpretations, but we came out with something that I believe, and the company believes, is workable going forward,” said AEP President Nick Akins in a conference call with analysts.

AEP is not changing its forecast that it will earn $3.25 per share next year, a sign that the settlement and other factors would produce income similar to what the company has expected.

The plan would help Ohio’s economy by encouraging the construction of power plants and renewable-energy projects and making other investments, the company said.

Consumer advocates say the economic harm far outweighs any benefits. “I don’t see how it’s good for the economy when everyone pays more for electricity,” said Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander.

AEP is agreeing to shelve some of the new charges it had wanted in exchange for the resolution of other issues. The new rate plan would begin in January and run through May 2016.

Among the other groups signing on to the deal are the Ohio Manufacturers Association, the Ohio Hospital Association, the Ohio Environmental Council, the Kroger Co. and several city governments. Most of those groups benefit from some provisions of the deal.

Several key parties decided not to sign on to the agreement, including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, FirstEnergy Solutions, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy and the Industrial Energy Users-Ohio.

Donald R. Schneider, president of FirstEnergy Solutions, said the settlement is a terrible deal for consumers.

“With this settlement, customers will be denied the benefits of low prices from the competitive market and be illegally burdened with high electric prices for years to come, all to benefit AEP shareholders at the expense of customers,” he said.

FirstEnergy Solutions opposes a provision that limits the percentage of customers who can choose an alternative electricity provider such as FirstEnergy Solutions or Border Energy. For example, the 2012 limit would be 21 percent of AEP’s total electricity sales; that would rise in 2013, and again in 2014 to 41 percent.

Above that cap, customers could still buy from an alternative provider, but the provider would need to pay an additional fee of $255 per megawatt-day, a level that critics say would make it impossible for competitors to make a profit.

The settlement also includes these provisions:

• AEP is agreeing to reorganize its Ohio operations in a way that separates the generation of electricity from the delivery of electricity.

• The utility is dropping its request for several charges. They would have required customers to pay the costs of shutting down old power plants and partially cover the costs of a clean-coal project that has been discontinued, among other things.

• At the same time, AEP would be able to add a charge to potentially require customers to pay for construction of power plants. The PUCO would need to approve each such charge.

• The utility would redesign its rate structure for commercial and industrial customers to make their rates more closely resemble market prices. Critics have said that this will shift a greater share of costs to residential customers.

• The company is committing $5 million per year for an economic-development program and $3 million per year to help low-income customers.

• In the final year of the rate plan, AEP would use a competitive-bidding process to obtain its electricity supply. No party could provide more than 75 percent of the supply.